I agree that the Roman Catholic has a distorted Gospel, to the point of being a false Gospel, and while I do reach out in friendship and humility with individuale Catholics. I too am uncomfortable with the wisdom of unifying in evangelistic work with Catholics, as some Evangelicals have done, and perhaps are still doing.

It’s trying to get points with the world.

Jodie

What gets my gander is that Spurgeon was consistent in his seperation from apostacy while those that post these articles are caught up in this ecumenical movement and deny it.

You are trying to be honest about the scriptures and they cant see that they are violating what even Spurgeon was unwilling to violate. This has long been a bug in my chest. Spurgeon was consistent in steering clear of apostacy. Many today yoke up with it and deny it at the same time.

They talk big and carry a small stick. I have little respect anymore for this.

Follow God….not men.

http://www.everydaymommy.net/everyday-mommy/2006/10/14/catch-up-on-your-reading.html

You ask a very perceptive question. As a former RCC I don’t want another “limbo/purgatory”!

You comment:

Does this “treated like a wicked servant” last for eternity? IOW, this sounds like a “position” between the torment of hell and the eternal bliss of Heaven. Is that right?

Based on my general perceptions of the issue, I think two things are pertinent. One is that rewards in general may turn out to be 100% relational. They may have to do with proximity to Jesus Christ Himself. Maybe the idea of “reigning with Him” has its emphasis on the “with Him”, meaning there will be greater amounts of access to Christ if we have suffered with Him. This to me especially makes sense in the case of martyrs. But therefore there will be for some a lack of access.

Two, I think the specifics of some sort of punishment may be related to a) humiliation of hearing a negative comment from the Lord, and in front of a great cloud of witnesses. And b), missing out, not on the wedding of the Lamb, but on the reception, the marriage feast of the lamb. The idea is that some people may not be in the beautiful (and brightly lit) banqueting hall, but outside in the well tended gardens so to speak. Free Grace writers have speculated on the “darkness outside” perhaps being a better translation than “outer darkness”.

I want to be forthcoming, so you get a good idea of how we interpret various things. The outer darkness is probably the most controversial thing GES and Hodges teach.

After that, there will continue to be ramifications but they will fade into the background in the supreme thrill of serving and worshiping in the visible Kingdom. But positionally are there second-class citizens? To be honest, I’m ok with this non-egalitarian concept being what God’s Kingdom will be like. Historically and internationally, some Christians suffer far more than others. But without the sin nature everyone will be more than satisfied with God’s system, whatever it is.

Blessings.

I thought that “preserve himself from the hardships of self-denial and cross-bearing” was a good expression for what I think I see in the passage.

Hey, thanks for the interaction. I agree very much about the discussion(s). I’ve broadened my understanding during this whole series.

(so thanks Nate!)

Blessings.

Well put. You’re right that because it is being contrasted with lose that save would be a possible meaning, but I’m not sure preserve wouldn’t fit as well. What I meant by comparing it to deliverance was that it was a general term and not always referring to eternal salvation, or to save eternally. It shouldn’t be treated as a term of art that is always tightly focused. That’s why the verse in Romans is helpful.

I’ll close my comments and quote Charlie Bing (a Free Grace writer), who has commented…
________________________________________________
Here some point to the phrase “save his life” and “loses his own soul,” and the consequence “destroyed” or “lost” (in Luke) to say that the passage speaks of eternal salvation. However, the verb save (sozo) often does not refer to eternal salvation. It is probably used here in the general sense of “rescue, preserve from danger” or “deliver,” i.e., save from a life of self-denial and cross-bearing, for this thought explains (“For,” gar) the impact of the previous conditions.

Likewise, “life” (psyche) does not automatically refer to the eternal soul only. The parallel in Luke 9:25 replaces Matthew and Mark’s “life” with “himself” (heauton). The noun psyche is frequently used in Scripture in the sense of the essential life of man. Contrary to other Lordship proponents, Stott recognizes this meaning. Speaking of the word psyche he correctly observes,

The word for “life” here means neither our physical existence, nor our soul, but our self. The psyche is the ego, the human personality which thinks, feels, plans and chooses… The man who commits himself to Christ, therefore, loses himself, not by the absorption of his personality in Christ’s personality but by the submission of his will to Christ’s will.

Furthermore, unless the context is clearly proved to be soteriological, the verbs “destroyed” (apollymi in Matthew) and “lost” (zemioo, in Matthew and Luke) should retain their respective general meanings of “ruin, destroy, lose” and “suffer damage or loss, forfeit, sustain injury.” When Jesus says “whoever loses his life for My sake,” the sense is certainly not eternal destruction, for He says this one will then “find it,” which is something good. Conversely, it fits well that what one may lose when he tries to save his life (preserve himself from the hardships of self-denial and cross-bearing) is life in the essential qualitative sense (i.e., experiencing God’s life in this life, John 17:3), not the eternal soul.

The paradox Jesus used has great meaning. What He appears to be saying is this: “Whoever desires to preserve himself from the hardships of God’s will of self-denial and cross-bearing will in fact forfeit the essential quality (= true spiritual value) of the present life he is trying to preserve. On the other hand, whoever forfeits himself to God’s will of self-denial and hardships will discover the greater essential quality (spiritual value) of the present life he was willing to forfeit.” This interpretation would therefore not describe eternal salvation, but a higher quality of experience with God in this life, with implications for the eschatological life, as the next section will show.

“A “true” apostate, so to speak, will be saved eternally. But at the Judgment Seat of Christ, of which Paul speaks of “knowing the terror of the Lord”, the apostate will be treated like the wicked and lazy servant.”

Does this “treated like a wicked servant” last for eternity? IOW, this sounds like a “position” between the torment of hell and the eternal bliss of Heaven. Is that right?